



_ 





^ ^ 4 


THE 


'ALLEGED ATHEISM 


m 


or TUG 


CONSTITUTION. 


[rrom 1‘HJE XOfiTHU^.\'' MOXTHLY for Xovember, ^SO?,] 


IST E W A R K 

18 0 7 . 


Ww . 





















































•XK 1 IS 



,«. • 







•I ^ 


rv 


‘ > 


I* Jl: . i 


k 

■ k 7 \ •■ * 

t 

*i 


» 



t 




« a ' 








A <> 

# 


i 


f 


(' 




V . 

BlUs^ ■ 


t 





« 







t 


•.*4 


T 


] 


1. \ 





t 


» 


» 



« 




• I 


• »• 


» 




r 


c 




L 


f 


I 


t 


\ 


\ 


fy 



I-*! 



t 


ft 





% . 


t 



V., 








i. 


» 




I 


« 


I 





'• V ‘'/•'I* 

•■’v '■ ^ 

I'V*.**' 






»» 


■'■h ■• 




Vj 




'V/ ' • 

• • 

‘ \ ■' 



<- 


} 






I V 

; 


I 

-> 


• > . 



r 


\ , 

I I 
ft'- 


• > '. 


i 










ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE COHSTITUTIO^^". 


‘‘It is bad policy to admit any thing,” said a learned judge to a 
young lawyer who was his companion on his circuit. “If your oppo¬ 
nent asserts what is prejudicial to your case, always make him j)rove 
,it.” This was one of his professional maxims, and to it he attributed 
in a great degree his success at the bar. He soon had another 
instance to educe of its value, but adverse to his interests. His 
companion, proving to be an apt scholar, could not be brought to 
admit that he had agreed to pay for both their dinners. There were 
no witnesses to the agreement; it therefore could not be proved, and 
the judge was obliged to pay for his own meal. 

Admissions generally work discomfiture to the party making 
them, and it may therefore be considered contrary to the dictates of 
sound wisdom and worldly policy to admit that the absence from 
the Constitution of the United States of a distinct recognition of an 
Omnipotent Being is a radical defect. It implies, as has been boldly 
said, “practical atheism” and an “ignoring of Christianity,” and 
consequently furnishes the infidel and the contemner of moral and 
religious laws with a potent argument to sustain them in their 
assumed position, however false, that they are guaranteed by that 
instrument entire immunity from all obligations of a religious charac¬ 
ter; and many there are who, although not liable to be thus classified, 
are willing to secure political power or other selfish aims by con¬ 
ceding to such men all their demands; finding an apology, poor 
though it be, in the admissions made by clergy and laymen of the 
highest standing, intellectually and socially, which are taken as 
affording conclusive evidence of the truth of what they boldly pro¬ 
claim, that this is not fundamentally a Christian country—making 
the popular will instead of the Christian faith the standard of morals 
and religion. The good democratic doctrine of Jefferson, that 
“ Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to 
combat it,” did not contemplate disarming Reason by depriving her 
of advantages of position and argument through suicidal admissions. 


Within a few months, meetingn have been held, both in Philadel- 
23hia and New-York, of what is believed to be a permanent organiza¬ 
tion, whose object it is to keep the public mind alive to this defect hi 
the Constitution, and to bring about its removal. Whether such a 
course is judicious, even were any intervention for the 2)urpose called 
for, may be doubted; and, under the most favorable auspices, success 
could scarcely be anticipated. It was assumed at these meetings 
that “ our need of securing God^s favor and of averting his dis^ 


4 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTIOiT. 


pleasure requires that we distinctly and especially acknowledge 
him and the authority of his word in the great charter of our 
national existence and power^'' and that the want of such definite 
acknowledgment alone rendered us deserving of, or at least liable to, 
condemnation. Strong language was used both in the resolution^ 
adopted and the speeches made, but moderate in comparison^itn 
that heretofore employed; for this movement is not a new tiling. 

For many years the subject had been publicly noticed from time 
to time by prominent divines; but, on the breaking out of the rebel¬ 
lion, a more combined and general efibrt was set on foot, resulting 
in the organization which has been referred to; and—whether by 
concerted action or not is undetermined—a particular day was fixed 
upon to bring the topics involved-simultaneously before the country. 

On the 4th of January, 1861, a large proportion of the people of 
the United States, on the recommendation of their Chief Magistrate, 
engaged in acts of worship, and, nominally at least, fasted and 
prayed in acknowledgment and deprecation of our national sins. It 
was a grand and imposing spectacle—a nation at the footstool of 
Jehovah—an act itself, it would seem, refuting the statements con¬ 
nected with its performance ; for were we not worshiping as a 
Christian people ? When did we become such ? It might have 
been assumed from the teachings, or rather utterances, of numej'ous 
pulpits on that day in several of the ISTorthern States, that our 
Christianity was coeval with the Constitution, and to be measured 
by its terms; and that, although from the adoption of that instru¬ 
ment down, we had been signally blessed as a jieople, and the benign 
influences of the Christian religion had been ever spreading, giving 
strength to the weak, hope to the distressed, consolation to the 
afflicted, innumerable blessings to all, yet, because of the fact that 
('the Constitution was not a proclamation of any religious faith, that 
its framers did not regard themselves as charged with the spiritual 
interests of their constituents, so far as to interfere with their religious 
belief, considering themselves authorized neither to enact canons nor 
promulgate dogmatical decrees, at that period, after those long 
years of prosperity and happiness, this “ defect,” this “ omission,” 
this ‘‘ ignoring” of his supremacy in that instrument, was found to 
be one of the prominent causes why “the wrath of God” was “kin¬ 
dled against this people”! Strange deduction; and yet leadihg 
journals were found to say, “We cannot refuse ourselves the grati¬ 
fication of alluding to the position—so worthy of a Christian minis¬ 
ter—taken by Dr.-, in reference to the practical atheism of our 

organic law.” Alarming announcement! for, if true, what could 
we expect would be our fate in the struggle before us with a foe 
whose claims to the divine favor were so superior to ours ? 



ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE COJNSITTIJTIOjS’. 


5 


Seven of the States of the Union—not one of them, by the way, 
containing as many white inhabitants as New-Jersey, and one of 
them (Florida) not as many by eighteen thousand as the county of 
Essex at that time—despising tlie glorious heritage of freedom and 
prosperity which they had so long enjoyed, had, not long before, 
formed themselves into a separate confederacy. It was true they had 
prefaced the act by measures of sequestration, appropriation, and 
violence as individual sovereignties, which met with few apologists 
outside of their respective limits; deeds, in ordinary parlance, of 
extortion, robbery, and murder, such as make men who commit them 
culprits in the sight of Heaven, and worthy of condemnation by all 
laws human and divine. But these were all atoned for; for to the 
Constitution which they adopted for their government was a pream- 
.e, in which appeared the following words: 



“We, the people of the Confederated States, etc., invoking the 
favor and guidance of Almighty God^ do ordain,” etc. 

A most reverential document truly! And thereafter most sys¬ 
tematically did they strive in all their public documents to avoid the 
error which their “atheistic” fathers had fallen into, by “ignoring” 
the Almighty in the Constitution which they so wisely threw from 
them. 

Did this recognition of God render less objectionable their un¬ 
warrantable procedure? Did this expression of their dependence 
upon him sanctify their aims? Did it make them any more a 
Christian people than they v/ere before ? Did that feature insure to 
their extemporized confederation perpetuity and a glorious future ? 
How does history answer these questions ? 

It is a presumptuous undertaking at any time to interpret the 
judgments of the Almighty by the light that this world’s logic may 
throw upon them; and certainly, if any dispensations of wrath are 
or are not to be attributed to the action of the fathers of our country 
when laying its foundations, the momentous question should not be 
solved by looking only at the surfjice, by criticising the language of 
a single document, and ignoring the spirit which pervaded the people 
and their representatives when those foundations were laid. Let us 
rather believe that, as Christian men, inhabiting Christian common¬ 
wealths whose laws and institutions recognized the Christian faith and 
the necessity of compliance with its requisitions, they met only with 
the view of effecting a more perfect union among their constituen¬ 
cies for secular purposes.)||f The members of the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention entertained no such infidel sentiments as are implied by the 
objections now brought forward against the instrument they framed, 
nor had the slightest intention of “ ignoring God as the Ruler of the 
nation.” The idea is preposterous. The thought, even, is libelous, 


5 


6 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTIOjS". 


and can only be excused on the ground that adequate information on 
the subject has not been secured by those who entertain it. Tlie 
fact is, if there is a government existing whose foundations Avere 
more immutably fixed on the recognition of a God and the su-. 
premacy of the Christian religion than any other, it is that of the 
United States of America. It Avas so regarded by the framers of 
the Constitution; and had it been announced to them that the per¬ 
petuity of the nation or its Avelfare depended upon their acknoAV- 
ledging in set terms, in that document, their belief in the existence 
of the one and their faith in the other, and that Avithout such ac¬ 
knowledgment infidelity would gather strength, and the Avrath of 
the Omnipotent descend upon the land, they Avould have resented it 
as an insult sought to be cast upon the virtue and intelligence of 
posterity. 



! The framers of the Constitution regarded some things as 
s^tled, and among these was the Christianity of the land. And in 
this connection reference may properly be made to a letter written 
in 1833 by Chief-Justice Marshall to the Rev. J. Adams, at Charles¬ 
ton, S. C., in Avhich is the following pregnant passage : “ The Ameri- 
cmi population is entirely Christian; and AAUth us Christianity and 
religion are identified.^f'T’^ icoulcl he strange^ indeed^ if^'with such a 
people^ our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, letter 
Avas published in the Charleston Courier oi April 21st, 1837, from 
Avhich it is quoted; and the passage Avill be recognized as harrno- 
nizing perfectly Avith the assertion of Judge Story that, Avhen the 
Constitution Avas formed, “ an attempt to level all religions and to 
make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifierence 
would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indig¬ 
nation.” What ground, therefore, can there be for accusing the fra¬ 
mers of the Constitution of having put forth an instrument “ ignoring 
God as the ruler of the nation” ?—a body presided over by George 
Washington, and having among its members such men as King, and 
Hamilton, and Wilson, and Sherman, and many others requiring no 
indorsement from the present generation to nullify an imputation of 
favoring either theoretical or practical atheism ? 

Some, indeed, might have silenced, very summarily and effectually, 
such an imputation by referring to their recorded action as members 
of the old Congress, AAdiich proclaimed their Christian sentiments. For 
instance, see the “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking 
up Arms,” adopted July 6th, ;i775. In that document the expres¬ 
sions of thankfulness for the “ many singular instances of the divine 
favor,” and of trust in his protection, are full and impressive ; among 
others appears the folloAving paragraph: “ With an humble confi¬ 
dence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTIOjST. 7 

of the Universe, we most devoutly imf)lore His divine goodness to 
protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adver¬ 
saries to reconciliation,” etc. Now, of the committee that drafted 
this declaration, John Rutledge, of South-Carolina, was chairman, 
and William Livingston, of New-Jersey, and Benjamin Franklin, of 
Pennsylvania, were among those associated with him, and all three 
were members of the Constitutional Convention. 

Is it to be presumed that they were less willing afterward than they 
were then to acknowledge the overruling providence of God ? Frank¬ 
lin’s agency in the introduction of prayers in the Convention is well 
known ; and Livingston had previously ofiered a resolution for the 
appointment of a fast-day, abounding in solemn asseverations of re¬ 
liance on the divine arm; asserting it to be the duty of the colonies, 
“ with true penitence of heart and the most reverent devotion, pub¬ 
licly to acknowledge God’s government, and by a confession of their 
sins, sincere repentance, and amendment of life, to appease his right¬ 
eous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus 
Christ obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” Not much theoretical or 
practical atheism in that. 

So, in lYSl, Madison was one of a committee who reported a pro¬ 
clamation for a fast, in which confession, repentance, and amendment • 
were urged to appease the Almighty’s righteous displeasure, 

“ through the merits of our blessed Saviour.” Yet Madison was a 
member of the Constitutional Convention ; and so was Williamson, 
of North-Carolina, who in 1782 was one of a committee who called 
upon “ all ranks to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness 
by a cheerful obedience to his laws,” and who asserted that “ the 
practice of true and undefiled religion is the great foundation of 
public prosperity and national happiness.” George Read, also, of 
Delaware, might have referred to the noble, highly Christian pro¬ 
clamation, reported by him for adoption by the Committee of the 
States, August 3d, 1784, recommending a day of thanksgiving on 
the ratification of the Definitive Treaty of Peace. 

But these men were not singular in their views; they were rep¬ 
resentative men merely. • The same sentiments filled the hearts and 
were uttered by the lips of hundreds who were the acknowledged 
exponents of the principles of the people. In confirmation of this, 
let us give a brief glance at a few of the many documentary proofs 
they have left behind them, issued at different times during the long j 
period intervening between the battle of Lexington and the adojition 
of the Constitution, while the nation was undergoing its formative 
processes. 

Taking up the journals of the old Congress, we meet at the out¬ 
set that “pertinent, affectionate, sublime, devout prayer, which 


8 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE COKSTITUTIOH. 


filled the bosom of every man present,” alluded to by Jolin Adams ; 
who, by the Avay, in a letter to his wife, supplies an omission in the 
minutes, by furnishing the names of Messrs. Cushing and Samuel 
Adams as originators of the proceedings which thus throw a halo of 
sanctity around the opening session of the Congress in old Carpen¬ 
ter’s Hall, Philadelphia. This was in September, 1774, and on open¬ 
ing the session at the State-House in the May following, the solemn 
act was repeated. In October, 1774, was issued the address to the 
people of Quebec, which closed with the fervent prayer “ that Al¬ 
mighty God may incline your minds to approve our equitable and 
necessary measures,” and all are familiar with the thrilling appeal 
“ to the supreme Judge of the world,” and the expression of the “ firm 
reliance on the protection of divine Providence,” which give such so¬ 
lemnity to the declaration that these States “ are, and of right ought 
to be, free and independent.” 

Reference has been made already to the impressive language used 
in the “ Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for taking up Arms;” 
and in several of the proclamations for fast-days, the frequent recom¬ 
mendation of such days being evidence enough in itself of the reli¬ 
gious sentiment prevailing. Yearly, from 1775, to 1782 inclusive, 
were these recommendations issued, and they all breathed the most 
thorough recognition of a divine Providence and reliance upon an 
Almighty arm. One specimen, in addition to the extracts already 
given, will suffice to establish this. The proclamation issued in June, 
1775, emanating from a committee composed of Messrs. Hooper, John 
Adams, and Paine, speaks of “ the great Governor of the world,” 
who, “ by his supreme and universal providence not only conducts 
the course of nature with unerring wisdom and rectitude, but influ¬ 
ences the minds of men to serve the wise and gracious purposes of 
his providential government,” as the being whose “ superintending 
providence” they should “ devoutly acknowledge at all times and 
it earnestly recommended “all Christians, of all denominations, to 
assemble for public worship, and to abstain from servile labor and 
recreation,” on the appointed day. That the people represented by 
these men, or the men themselves, should be visited with the condem¬ 
nation of the present generation because of a fancied “ ignoring of 
God in the Constitution ” is surprising. Look, too, in the j^roceed- 
ings of September 11th, 1777, when, on the report of a committee that 
proper types for printing “ the Bible”—and it was not thought 
necessary to be more explicit then^ all knew what Bible was meant 
—could not be had in the country, it was directed that twenty thou¬ 
sand copies be imported from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere. And 
when, on the 26th of June, 1778, the form of ratifying the Articles 
of Confederation was adopted, the men now accused of “ practical 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTION. 


9 


atheism” did not hesitate to say that it had “pleased the great 
Goveriior of the world to incline the hearts of the Legislatures we 
respectively represent in Congress to approve the instrumentand 
in 1782, by solemn resolution, they recommended “ to the inhabitants 
of the United States” Mr. Aitkin’s edition of “ the Bibleand we 
have seen that not only when in distress did they turn to him who 
was able to save them, but, when safety was vouchsafed, they called 
upon “ all ranks” to bow before him in humble gratitude. 

It will be perceived that no attempt has been made to strengthen 
the presentation of the subject by any arguments based upon the 
circumstances of settlement or colonization, however pertinent and 
cogent. The relations existing between man and his Maker were, 
as we all know, fully recognized and acted on by the colonies; their 
laws, their customs, their observances, their systems of jurispru¬ 
dence, all conformed, in a greater or less degree, to the doctrines 
of the Christian faith ; but it would unduly lengthen this article to 
enter into details respecting them, and the writer, therefore, has pre¬ 
ferred confining himself to a review of the period immediately pre¬ 
ceding the adoption of the Constitution, or in which that event 
occurred, and of the men cotemporaneous therewith; “ our fathers,” 
as they were called by one of the prominent divines of a neighbor¬ 
ing city on the fast-day alluded to. After finding in the simple omis¬ 
sion of a direct acknowledgment of God in the Constitution a defect 
of such awful potency as to warrant the question, “ Why should we 
expect God’s blessing on our Union as one nation ?” he ventured 
the following startling assertion : “ I am aware of only one provi¬ 
sion which distinguishes our civil polity from a heathen organization 
—that provision is the oath of office. . . . Our fathers, in their 

opposition to a union of church and state, with just apprehensions 
of the domineering exactions of bigotry and the predominance of 
sectarian intelligence, swung back on the extreme opposite of ignor¬ 
ing God as the ruler of the nation.” If such views are entertained 
' and promulgated from our pulpits, can it be a matter of surprise that 
our ill-informed foreign residents should assume that they are war¬ 
ranted in ignoring our Sunday laws ? that the legal restraints placed 
upon the exercise of their animal propensities, their sensual appetites, 
their infidel proclivities, which are derived from the Christian code 
of morals, may be disregarded with impunity? Fearful already 
have been the consequences (and what further may be in store for 
us no one can say) arising from these unfounded admissions and 
false criticisms; and great responsibility rests upon those who make 
them. But let us return to what was the action of “ our fathers” in 
the difierent States after their separation from Great Britain. 

In the Constitution of New-IIampshire, the duty of worshiping 


10 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTIOK 


God was fully recognized and enforced. Morality and piety, rightly 
grounded on evangelical principles, will give,” said that instrument, 
“ the best and greatest security to government ”—“ every denomina¬ 
tion of Christians ” demeaning themselves quietly and as good citi¬ 
zens being alike protected—every individual having “ a natural and 
unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his 
own conscience.” 

The Constitution of Massachusetts provided that measures should 
be adopted by all the towns for the “institution of the public wor^ 
ship of God^ and for the support and maintenance of public Protes¬ 
tant teachers of piety, religion, and morality,” as thereupon essen¬ 
tially depended “ the happiness of a people, and the good order and 
preservation of civil government,” as being “the right as well as 
the duty of all men in society, and at stated seasons, to worship the 
Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.” 

Rhode Island and Connecticut, under their respective charterg, 
are well known to have adopted codes of laws and institutions emi¬ 
nently Christian in character; but neither of them, at the time under 
review, had yet formed a constitution. 

New-Jersey secured every civil right to all persons “professing 
a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean them¬ 
selves peaceably,” and guaranteed every person against being “ de¬ 
prived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in 
a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” 

Pennsylvania insisted, as a prerequisite to holding office. Upon 
the acknowledgment of the “ being of a God, and a future state of 
rewards and punishments,” and asserted that “ all men have a natu¬ 
ral and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the 
dictates of their own conscience.” 

Delaware said in her constitution that it was “through divine 
goodness all men have, by nature, the right of worshiping and serv¬ 
ing their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences,” and 
declared that the prosperity of communities depended upon piety and 
morality, making it a duty of “ all men frequently to assemble to¬ 
gether for the public worship of the Author of the universe.” 

Maryland required of her office-holders a declaration of belief in 
the Christian religion, and that oaths should be administered in 
“the most effectual confirmation, by the attestation of a Divine 
Being,” and said, “ That, as it is the duty of every man to worship 
God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons 
professing the Christian religion are equally entitled to protec¬ 
tion,” etc. 

Virginia bore record that religion, or “ the duty which we owe 
to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTION. 


11 


only by reason and conviction,” etc., and “ that it is the mutual 
duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity to¬ 
ward each other.” 

Korth-Carolina excluded from office all who denied “the being 
of a God,” the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine author¬ 
ity of either the Old or the New Testaments; or who should hold 
religious principles inconsistent with the freedom and safety of the 
State, all men having “ a natural and unalienable right to loorship 
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” 

Georgia recognized the responsibility of a man to his Creator, and 
considered it an “ inestimable privilege to worship God in a manner 
agreeable to one’s own conscience.” 

South-Carolina and New-York were more general in their guar¬ 
antees of the “free exercise and enjoyment” of religious worship; 
but the terms used expressly recognize the obligations of religion, 
and guarded against any “ acts of licentiousness ” growing out of the 
liberty so granted; and NeAv-York, in excluding clergymen from 
office, placed it on the ground that “ by their profession they were 
dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not 
to be diverted from the grand duties of their functions.” 

At the time the Constitution of the United States was framed, 
such were the aA^owed sentiments of the people of the several States 
whom “ our fathers ” represented, as reflected in their respective 
fundamental laAvs. These views Avill be found incorporated in the 
laAvs everyAvhere enacted and everyAvhere enforced, as Avell as in the 
correspondence of the prominent men of the times, Avho are to be 
regarded as exponents of the principles of different classes and par¬ 
ties ; shoAving that, Avith such a uniformity of vicAvs i3revailing, it 
might Avell have been considered a Avork of supererogation for the 
members of the Constitutional Convention to have inserted in the 
instrument they framed any proclamation of the Christian character 
of the people for whom they Avere acting. 

It is hoped that the injustice of the charges brought against “ our 
fathers ” has been made fully manifest in Avhat has been written. As 
is justly remarked by Lieber, “The great mission which this country 
has to perform Avith reference to Europe, requires the utter divorce 
of State and Church, not Religion;” and that Avas precisely the 
distinction draAvn by the patriots of the ReA^olution. It is CAudent 
from the construction of the Corrstrtution that it did not enter into 
the minds of its authors that they might subject the country in after 
times to the wrath of an offended Deity for putting forth a document 
of atheistic tendencies; for the subject of religion Avas not introduced 
into the body of the instrument at all; and it is apparent from the 
debate on the clause prohibiting Congress from passing any laAVS re- 


12 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OE THE COJISTITUTIOI?!. 


lating to the establishment of religion, which is found among the 
amendments, that it was inserted rather to guard against presumed 
danger from an already too manifest disposition to infuse the reli¬ 
gious element more largely into the Government than from any ex¬ 
isting want of it. The use that is made of this mis-called guarantee 
of liberty of conscience in the Constitution—“ mis-called,” because it 
simply leaves the subject of religion to the discretion of the State 
legislatures—has given some interest to the inquiry. With whom did 
it originate ? The clause was undoubtedly inserted in accordance 
with the wishes of Virginia, North-Carolina, and New-York, all three 
recommending an amendment of the sort. Virginia suggested, with 
some slight modification, what she had herself adopted for her own 
constitution, as follows: “ That religion, or the duty which we owe 
to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed 
only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and there¬ 
fore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free 
exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that 
no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or estab¬ 
lished by law in preference to others.” 

This declaratory amendment, or matter for one, Avas recommend¬ 
ed by Virginia on the 26 th of June, lYSS, and shortly afterward 
Yorth-Carolina adopted it verbatim^ and introduced it among the 
amendments she proposed; and New-York evidently had it in view 
Avhen, on the 26 th of July, she proposed “that the people have an 
equal, natural, and inalienable right, freely and peaceably, to exercise 
their religion according to the dictates of conscience;” “and that 
no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by 
laAV in preference to others.” These relative dates seem therefore 
to give to Virginia the parentage^f the clause referred to; and as 
George Mason drafted both the constitution of that State and the 
proposed amendments or Bill of Rights, which emanated from its 
convention, he may be regarded as the originator of the guarantee 
that Congress should not interfere with the religions of the States ; 
such being in truth the purport of thfe clause. 

The Constitution was adopted by the Convention in September, 
1787, and it was not until June of the following year that it Avas 
ratified by a sufficient number of States to become the established 
fundamental law of the nation. All know how critically it AAms ex¬ 
amined and discussed in all its points during those long nine months ; 
how every possible objection Avas started by its opponents, and 
how effectually one after another -was refuted; but is there th e 
least intimation, in any of the many documents, speeches, and letters 
of the time, that a single individual considered that by it “God 
was ignored as the ruler of the nation” ? 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTION'. 


13 


It is true that in three of the State ratifying conventions regrets 
were expressed that there was not some religious test required of 
office-holders^ besides the oath of office; but there seems to have 
been a general sentiment in harmony with the views of Oliver 
Wolcott, as expressed in the convention of Connecticut, one of the 
three alluded to, that the oath ‘Svas a direct appeal to that God 
who is the avenger of perjury,” “and a full acknowledgment of his 
being and providence.” The other two conventions were those 
of Massachusetts and North-Carolina. In the first were several 
divines who, with a full understanding o^the subject before them, 
used very different language from that of modern times, as has been 
quoted. “Such,” said one of them, “ were the abilities and integrity 
of the gentlemen who constructed the Constitution, as not to admit 
of the presumption that they would have betrayed so much vanity 
as to attempt to erect bulwarks and barriers to the throne of God.” 
Another conceived that “ no man or men can impose any religious 
test, without invading the essential prerogatives of Jesus Christ;” 
and yet another said, “ The Apostle Peter tells us that God is no 
respecter of persons, that in every nation he that feareth him and 
worketh righteousness is acceptable to him . . . the exclusion of a 
religious test in the proposed constitution therefore clearly appears 
to be in favor of its adoption.” “ The clergy of Connecticut,” wrote 
Madison, “are exerting themselves in its favor;” and referring to the 
States east of New-York, Gouverneur Morris wrote, “Their preach¬ 
ers are advocates for the adoption.” In favor of a document 
“ignoring God”! advocating the adoption of an instrument “practi¬ 
cally atheistic”! What infatuation! In North-Carolina, Mr. Ire¬ 
dell remarked: “It is never to be supposed that the people of 
America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no 
religion at all, or a religion materially differing from their own. 
The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by 
worldly authorities.” In these discussions, and on all other oc¬ 
casions when the subject ■^vas referred to, it is evident that the fact 

_the fixed, indubitable fact was ever present—its importance im- 

denied and undeniable—its continuance positive and unquestioned 

_that the religion of Jesus Christ was the formally recognized and 

established religion of the land—“ their OAvn religion ”—depending 
upon the phraseology of no document, nor the opinions of any 
body of men for its introduction or preservation. Within tim pale 
of the Christian faith there might be the greatest diversity of 
opinions; but the Christian’s God was the only God to be wor¬ 
shiped. “As far as they are Christians,” said John Adams of the 
various denominations, “ I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.” 

The writer hopes that his own position in reference to the ques- 


14 


ALLEGED ATHEISM OF THE CONSTITUTIOIf. 


tion involved has not been left in doubt. He is well aware that the 
importance of the subject demands a better refutation of the ground¬ 
less charge thus sweepingly made against the patriots who gave us 
the Constitution than this simple exposition of facts has afforded. 
Although firmly convinced that Christianity “is, and of right ought 
to be, the Law of the Land,” he might not have attempted the dis¬ 
cussion had he not, as a Jerseyman, felt aggrieved at having such 
names as Witherspoon, Frelinghuysen, Livingston, Paterson, Day- 
ton, Howell, Hunter, and others, that shine in the annals of the 
State, and that were connected either with the formation or ratifica¬ 
tion of that instrument, rest under the imputation of having sanc¬ 
tioned any measure “ ignoring God as the ruler of the nation,” or 
of a practically atheistic character. 

That the ground upon which such contemners of the Constitution 
stand is untenable is plainly manifested by the inconsistencies into 
which they are drawn when called upon to uphold the authority of 
the government. One of the clergy, who, on the fast-day referred to, 
most emphatically pronounced the defectiveness of the Constitution 
to be sufficient cause for the withholding of the Almighty’s favor, 
has since, in a published discourse, given utterance to the following 
sentiments: “ The people of these United States, under the Federal 
Constitution, are one nation, organic, corporate, divinely established^ 
subject to government, and bound in conscience to obedience. Dis^ 
loyalty to the Constitution is^ therefore^ impiety toward God. . . . 
To destroy this Union, therefore, is to commit a sin which God will 
righteously punish by evils which no prescience can foresee and 
no Avisdom can repair. . . . Secession is disunion, and disunion is 
treason; for the Constitution abides as our ‘ principality and power,’ 
''ordained of God^ securing life, liberty, and happiness to the- 
nation.” So, verily, believes the Avriter; but he Avill not attempt to 
shoAv how such vicAVS accord Avith those previously promulgated by 
the same reverend gentleman or others who have succeeded him. 

Let the Constitution be ever upheld as a Christian document, 
framed by Christian men, representing Christian communities, for 
the government of a Christian nation. Let our ports be opened 
Avide to the oppressed of all nations. Let the inAutation go forth to 
the ends of the earth: “Come and enjoy Avith us the blessings of 
liberty and civilization. Behold Avhat religion and republican insti¬ 
tutions have done for us. Our fathers founded the government upon 
the immutable principles of Christianity. It is the law of the 
land. Ask us not to abolish the precious privileges which have 
made our country what it is, rendering it so attractive to us and to 
you. The liberty Ave would cherish is that with Avhich ‘ Christ makes 
free.’ The civilization Ave Avould enjoy with you is that which 


15 


derives its excellences from an ever-pervading regard for law and 
order.” Let such be our standpoint, such the welcome to our 
shores; and let not disparagement of the Constitution, through mis¬ 
conception of its provisions, timid concessions to infidel exactions, or 
for time-serving purposes, impair its moral force and strengthen the 
cause of the enemies of religion. 






LBJL '05 



I 


% 




D' 


Sv ■*-■ ' ‘i ' v‘^ 


» i/W-'-'■ •' jP 

;v. .^%.r V- 



-,i™_ * ,. 



... 'ip4; 






' ^■ ^ * 
j 


'*f 


. ■ '■: • '.'1 ... ■ 

' * •'■■■' ^ ; V. , V ' ■' ‘ 

V^.s- 


lf.P > 

f i L^'<* ,'*'“••.»• IK ; ‘ • 

1 I » il •-* r •'* • . . «•*“ 

' m.iiittP- •! . •» - .! i>W!^ "k - ' r'• ^ _ «, _ ‘ 


S 4 » 


•» > . I' •»^#. ■, 


t i. 

V 

': 3 a v' 


"■“Lf,4;-iri; 


. Jk‘ 









\'''i "'!* '.i/' 


i ' • • / 


^ il' -*r^';;.«<; 









^ 4 ' 




*^4 .1 




A' 


i r 



. -..I^ft.. . — ,y 

‘ <-V* . “ ‘ 

.S*7arti^. > 7, , • V . 


r>! I •* »r..' . .' i,v> ' TTim tiirr 

'i>'‘ V’- '■'■ * 






